M/S. JALARAM INVESTMENT,,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3,, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Jalaram Investment, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Opp. Jain Temple, Gayatri Nagar, Ward-3, Wanakbori, Tal. Thasra, Nadiad Dist. Kheda [Pan : Aaefj 9906 E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Talera, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2020

penalty of Rs.84,850/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 22.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,42,000/- and claimed refund of Rs.1,71,848/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR , GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section I4A r.w.r 8D the iota! disallowance has been worked out to Rs.5!,6l,079/- by the Learned AO, addition whereof was in turn confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal. 31. We find that this particular issue as already been dealt with by in in ITA No. 1172/Ahd/20I6 for A.Y. 2011-12 in Revenue's appeal

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

ISHWARBHAI SOMNATH PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 56 Addition on account to undisclosed interest of saving bank account Ishwarbhai Somnath Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 RSPL Limited (company which was purchasing lands in the name of the appellant) has opened bank account in the name of appellant and the said account was operated by the company only. Amount deposited including interest thereon belongs

THE ITO, WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, as well as Cross Objection filed by Assessee both, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 120/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ito, M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ward-1(1), Vs. Adani House, Ahmedabad. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aagca9379P

244A for Rs 3,11,990, when no such interest is chargeable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest." 1.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that when he had ordered for the deletion of the entire addition of Rs.2,85,92,150 made in the assessment order impugned before him, he ought to have

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A the appellant wholly denied the payment of such liability in consequences of addition. ITA Nos.1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 & 685/Ahd/2023 Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2012-13 9. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and in law in initiating issue of notice u/ 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceeding